Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: Lets bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues dont like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor. (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): My expectation is that were not going to hold up judicial nominations. You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations. (Fox News Special Report With Brit Hume, 6/4/01)

Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): Lets bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down. (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): It is our job to confirm these judges. If we dont like them, we can vote against them. (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): [The filibuster process] is used as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes. (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down .And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations. (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues dont like them, vote against them. But give them a vote. (Congressional Record, 2/3/98)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote yes or no. ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate. (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an up or down vote. (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): I hope we will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. If we want to vote against them, vote against them. (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote. (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT):  "I have stated over and over again that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported  (Congressional Record, 6/18/98)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): [E]arlier this year I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination. (Congressional Record, 10/14/98)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): [I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. Vote them up, vote them down. (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): [W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor. (CNNs Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields, 6/9/01)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): [W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen. (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)

At the time of those quotes the Republicans were unabashedly blocking every Clinton judicial appointment that they could by delaying committee hearings or refusing the schedule hearings at all. The Republicans had no problems blocking nominees then, and the Democrats were steaming. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The Democrats are blocking appointments and the GOP is suddenly indignant.

Then why do we keep hearing that it's never been done before? I'm not doubting you, just asking.

Filibustering judicial nominees never has been done before, although some claim that it was done with Abe Fortis back in the 1960's. But the GOP didn't need to filibuster. As the majority party they controlled the committee schedule. And Jesse Helms was chairman. So killing judicial nominees at the committee level was a piece of cake.

I guess that I wanted to know if they were doing the same thing that the Democrats are doing right now. I think Rush has been saying that the Democrats are the ones who started doing this six years ago and that it hadn't been done before this. Were the Republicans keeping the vote from getting out of committee so that it could go to a full vote in the Senate? (I know that you don't know, but I'm wondering if anyone else does.)

Were the Republicans keeping the vote from getting out of committee so that it could go to a full vote in the Senate? (I know that you don't know, but I'm wondering if anyone else does.)

Yes. The majority party runs the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman runs the schedule. One one or two occasions nominees that had been voted out of committee were blocked by Senator Helms. Not a single one of these actions violated any Senate rule. But then again, neither does the filibuster.

It may be substantively different. It may be that, since the Republicans controlled the Senate, there wouldn't have been enough votes on the floor, anyway. If my memory serves me, Clinton nominated some real nut jobs who happened to be minorities, then were saying that everyone opposing them was a racist. It may be that the Republicans on the committee were preventing those on the floor from having to cast their vote against.

It also may have been that a lot of Republicans were still respecting the time-honored tradition that the President was entitled to name judges whose political leanings were the same as his own, and that political or judicial philosophy was not a legitimate basis for voting down a nominee. Maybe the Republican leadership was afraid they would get the votes. I don't know.

It may be that, since the Republicans controlled the Senate, there wouldn't have been enough votes on the floor, anyway.

Perhaps. But in killing nominees by refusing to schedule committee hearings or voting out of committee then wasn't the GOP doing what they are complaining about now? Denying a nominee an up or down vote in the Senate?

If my memory serves me, Clinton nominated some real nut jobs who happened to be minorities...

And the Democrats claim that they are preventing extremists from the Bench. One party's sober jurist is another party's nut job.

...then were saying that everyone opposing them was a racist.

And the GOP is saying that the Democrats are opposing Republican nominees because they are Hispanic or because they are Catholic. Sad that we're taking pages out of the Democrat playbook, isn't it?

Great post, thanks. Concerning the filibuster, what scares me the most is the gut feeling that the Repubs don't have 50 votes to support the Constitutional option even though a majority of the country (see Rasmussen) supports it. McCain, Hagel, Collins, Snowe, Chafee, and Graham will probably vote against it. This is why I fear that a compromise is imminent.

92
posted on 05/19/2005 11:02:48 AM PDT
by moose2004
(You Can Run But You Can't Hide!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.